Spectrum Mountain update

In my recent post about the horrible pulling power of steam, I had indicated my interest in the new Spectrum Mountain. I was drawn to it because its cousin, the Consolidation, is a most excellant steamer and the strongest loco I own, bar none. So yesterday, despite my usual MO of waiting until full reviews are in before purchasing, I decided to be one of the trail blazers and bought one. I said if I did, I would post my findings, such as they are, here. So here they are.

First let me say, this is a beautiful steamer. Great detail. Crisp lettering. Very pretty.
Mechanically, it is a little early to form a complete analysis since I have been breaking it in for only two hours. BUT, it is NOT a consolidation. It does start like one. Sounds like one. Has the same jerky motion when new. Hopefully this will go away with more track time, as did the Connie. The difference in the two was my most feared: pulling power. As it is now, it struggles pulling five cars up a 2% grade. This has me baffled (well not really). I figured: larger loco, traction tires, good genes; must be a strong puller. It is not. It must be a lighter loco than the Connie. Go figure. Yes, with a traction tire and all that muscle, it slips. It slips pulling 10 cars on the flat. It slips pulling 5 cars up 2%. There is just not enough weight behind it to engage friction principles.

Perhaps it will be smoother with time, perhaps it will be stronger with time. Perhaps with a little weight under the hood it won't slip. But for the cost of this loco and with my expectations for it, I must say that my initial findings are a little disappointing.

Has anyone else bought one and had time to test it? Perhaps my findings will turn out to be unusual. I don't think so though.

Jacob

 

One other thing I forgot to mention is that they did at least supply a replacement coupler for the dummy on the front, albeit a rapido. So the future I can see for this guy is that it will be a helper loco. Pretty expensive for just a little more muscle.

Jacob

 

Hmmmm..... I don't have one, but was seriously considering getting one. I was waiting for some reviews as well.... maybe from Steamguy, when I get back to the Atlas Forum tomorrow.

The usual questions are... did you check to see if all the wheels are in properr guage, not binding against the rails. The other concern is that "herky jerky" motion that you are mentioning... which if it is a slight (or sometimes very noticable) side to side motion going down the track, then there could be some quartering problem with the drivers. Both of those problems could lead to less efficient use of tractive effort and thus slippage. Both the quartering & out-guage wheel, if really bad, could also cause derailments. Any such problems while you've been running thusfar?

Jacob... does the mountain have pre-installed knuckle couplers on the front pilot and on the tender?

[ 04. January 2004, 16:19: Message edited by: Calzephyr ]

 

Jacob;

By placing the rapido coupler on the front of a unit you can run a double-header, expensive yes, but still it would be neat to see.

Lenny

 

Cal, actually, everything checks out. The wheels are in gauge. The jerkiness is "slight"?? I guess. Only real noticable at slower speeds. I am sure that that has something to do with the poor pulling. The 4 connies I had were the same right out of the box. Their pulling got better with time too. Although the connies were never that bad. There was one early review I had read about the poor pulling power a few days ago. I had hoped it was an anomaly. I would like to know what Steamguy has to say as well. I suppose I'll just sit back and wait til more people have them.

Lenny, I did want to double a set of steamers with a couple of mine. It will look pretty cool. I guess this will be one of them.

Jacob

 

:Mine all ran in a jerky fashion out-of-the-box. This smoothed out quickly. I am surprised that one gentleman here has been running his for two hours and it has not yet started to smooth out. It took three to four hours for the last one to smooth out completely. One smoothed out totally after two hours. Some smoothed out in one direction more quickly than the other. It would run smoothly in reverse, but it took longer for it to smooth out in forward. For others, it was the other way. I have one that is working right now that has been running for about an hour. It is mostly smooth in forward. It is a bit jerky still in reverse. It will need a bit more running time.

Mine will pull six RR HW cars on MT trucks on flat surface or up a one per-cent grade. I have not tried anything nastier. I use mine for passenger trains, I use the consolidated for freight. One thing about this that also applies to the prototypes: the more idler axles that you have, the less weight-on-drivers, which yields a smaller factor-of-adhesion thus less tractive effort. The consolidated has one idler axle, the mountain, six.

If you look at the prototypes, you will see that the anthracite roads preferred consolidateds to mikados. Consider that many of these moved a lot of coal. Speed is less of a concern when moving coal than is pulling power. Coal is a heavy commodity. The D&H, in particular (as did the Reading Company), had these huge consolidateds that gave all sorts of tractive effort.

True, the B&O, the N&W and the C&O used fewer consolidateds than the anthracite roads; they used articulateds instead. The C&O and the N&W had the money to spend on that equipment, the anthracite roads did not. The B&O did not either--it just spent money that it had not yet made.

As for couplers, the tender takes a 2004 (it is the same tender as the 2-8-0, USRA Standard). The front is not a concern for me on this as I use it for passenger and do not often doublehead steam on passenger trains. I do wish that the Bachpersonn would at least construct the pilots in such a fashion as to allow them to accept MTs.

 

I have two of the Spectrum 4-8-2's. I am very disapointed in their pulling power. I was anticipating an engine much like the consolidation as far as pulling power. I have a double track mainline and can run them side by side. The mountain runs much like consolidation through its speed range. It does seem to smooth out as it is run more. Mine actually does better running backward. The other engine I am thinking of returning. I feel that only the front and rear set of drivers is fully contacting the rails. I actually have wheel slip pulling a nine car train on flat level track. I am very dissapointed in the Spectrum Light Mountains.

 

My 4-8-2, as I've noted elsewhere, has disappointed me greatly in terms of pulling power. it will not even comfortably pull ten freight cars. Mine runs quite well at slow speeds---by itself. With a modest load it has a "hurky-jerky" motion, but this is caused by continuously losing and regaining traction. I find it completely astonishing that this loco has traction tires, and yet so little tractive effort; and also that it comes right after the fantastic success of the Consolidation. How could they have released this engine like this? It seems insane. And the idea of using this as a passenger engine is little comfort to me. I already have enough of those; I intended to purchase this one as a freight loco; and the road name I chose was NYO&W---got any passenger sets for that road?

 

Based on the information that has been noted in this thread, I am wondering if the problem with the Mountains is the same as was experienced with the very initial Consols; that the base plate on the locomotive is installed too tightly, causing some of the drivers to not be in contact with the rails. I know that this led to both limited traction and the "herky-jerky" motion that was experienced on the very first released Consols.

The fix for this was to every so slightly loosen the screws holding on the base plate; this allowed the drivers greater motion within their slots, and seemed to improve both the traction and the motion of the Consol.

Has anyone yet tried this with the Mountain?

 

Doug, I haven't tried that with mine, but we're thinking along the same lines. My mountain does very well ecxept in a few places where the third pair of drivers appear to lose adhesion to the rail: beginning of a grade, for instance. I was trying to think how I could do something to allow the fourth pair to "float" some, allowing the third pair to shoulder more weight. It's too bad the traction tires weren't put on the fourth axle. Other than this, I am quite pleased with the loco.

 

Dick,

I hope this type of fix works with the Mountain; unfortunately, I won't be able to give it a try until March at the earliest (the "requisitions/purchasing department" has advised that there will be no further purchases permitted in the immediate future ; something about paying down the large operating deficit that was generated during the recent holiday season ).

I am hoping that these turn out to be a good locomotive equal to the Consol; I can use a couple of these. In addition, of course, there are the upcoming Spectrum Ten-Wheelers and 2-6-6-2's to worry about; I am hoping that the Consol was not a "flash in the pan"...

 

Hmmm, Sutton. A very interesting idea. I will give it a try. I know with the consolidations that a tight plate caused all sorts of wackiness. Perhaps if it is too tight it is lifting the traction tires too much. I am getting used to poor pulling steamers, so I still think this is a fine loco. It does bring to mind though another nagging doubt about the quality control at Bachmann. Even if this has an easy fix, if all of our locos are experiencing the same problems, didn't Bachmann test their products before release? Don't they realise that one move like this could wipe out all the good will they built up with the Connie? Their reputation as a maker of fine n scale products is based on one good release and is still too new to absorb the bad press of one bad release. I hope for their sake and for all of us that were looking forward to the other releases, that this is not a design flaw. I really want the makers of good steam to succeed.

 

I think that the Old and Weary used these for both passenger and freight. I do not recall that the NYO&W had too many steel passenger cars, so you might get away with painting the MDC Overtons, but decals might be a problem. Microscale does make a sheet for Old and Weary diseasels and cabooses. I lettered a Kato caboose for NYO&W. I know, the Old Woman could not afford steel cabooses either, but there is no caboose out there that is correct for the Old and Weary. The Kato is the closest--a bit like a steel version of the wood caboose that they used (although the Kato is missing one window). I took a page from the LL here: LL issued its NE/USRA I caboose in B&O, even though the B&O never had any of these. The NE/USRA I caboose looks a lot like a steel version of the B&O wood cab.

But back to the mountain and its performance. I have not noticed that my drivers are not making contact; I have been looking that close. This was how I noticed that they appeared and were, in fact, smaller than the prototype's sixty-nine inches. As I have stated, mine will pull six RR HWs up a one per-cent grade. Six RR HWs must be equivalent to at least ten MT boxcars.

There were two things that I did notice about this that did affect its runnability during its initial laps of break-in. One one, the drawbar was not on properly. This caused it to lift the locomotive's rear from the tracks and caused a derailment/jacknife. One another, the trailing truck was not on properly and causeed derailments when running mostly in reverse but sometimes in forward. The trailer on this has a rather stiff spring load on it. It could also be lifting the rear of the locomotive from the track. That stiff spring load may have been a mistake on the B-personn's part; recall what I have typed elswhere about idler axles detracting from tractive effort. An idler with a stiff spring load will diminish even more the factor-of-adhesion. I corrected my problem with the trailer by working it side-to-side to get it to seat properly. All the same, it does still have a stiff spring-load to it, even when it and its spring are properly seated. You might try removing the spring on the trailing truck; this may or may not cause derailments. One further word of warning: if you start tinkering with this thing, you may void the warranty.

Please keep me posted on your travails with this. I am currently putting one more through its break-in paces. I am going to be watching for some of the things that you and others have described.

 

Just a thought about the traction tires,has any one tried running the loco on one of those Minitrix brass wire wheel cleaners,just enough to scour the traction tire abit.Maybe some mould release still on trac. tire.?

 

OK, I tried. I really tried. I ran that puppy for 6 hours. It only got worse. I cleaned it. I lubed it. The jerkiness became almost a seizure at lower speeds. So I returned it to the store. I tried out 3 other locos as well. 2 were binding and one kept jumping up when going forward or back. One of them that was binding the least I applied a very slight amount of pressure to and it slipped like crazy. I'm sorry for Bachmann, but the ship has sailed for me with the Mountains unless they do an amazing job redoing these in a second run.

I hope you guys have better luck than I. But after test driving 4 inferior locos, I've got too bad a feeling to overcome.

Jacob

 

I have tried a number of the suggestions from the different forums. Loosening the bottom plate screws, removing the spring from the trailing truck, and cleaning and roughing up the traction tires.

This has made no difference in the pulling power of the engine running foward. Running in reverse however makes quite a difference. I was able to pull an 18 car train with no problem at all.

To further test this I raised one leg of my 4x8 layout and put it on a 1 1/2 inch piece of wood. The other three legs remined on the floor. This created a grade around an 18" radius curve that was 1 1/3 of an inch high across the 4 foot width of the layout.

The mountain was able to pull the 18 car train up the grade with no problem. I even stopped on the grade and restarted. The drivers slipped a little until the train started moving.

I tried the consolidation with the same train and grade. It too slipped a little but was able to pull the train.

From this unoffical test I would say that the mountain should pull quite a good size train.
Now if it would only do it when running forward.

John J. Butler

 

Interesting John. Perhaps there is something to the idea then that the tender is affecting its level on the track. I'll check out that reverse thing.

How can I check it out since I returned mine to the store you ask? Because I'm an idiot. Maybe. I was at a different hobby shop picking up some freight cars (theoretically). The owner knew I had been interested in the Mountain, so asked me if I wanted to see it run. (He tests all locos before putting them out for sale) I figured, what the heck, might as well get a chuckle out of another wiggle-waddle Mountain. The thing is, it was as smooth as poop through a goose. And it was a NH. So, I couldn't pass it up. I haven't tried pulling anything with it yet. No time for break-in even. But it did run nicely. This time I won't return it to the store if it's inadequate though. Straight to Bachmann. Let them deal with it. I don't want to deprive this HS of a sale as they are good guys and I think things have been a little tight lately.

Jacob